think we should give preference to rather than those companies that are sending jobs offshore. we lose jobs and revenue and a lot of things. i tell you this is going to be a major issue when we get down to the next trade deals over the next decade because it has an incredible impact of who we should be trading with and what we should ask for so that we set a precedent. the precedent is very important. we want to increase manufacturing. i'm seeking to limit, mr. chairman, or eliminate a company's ability to take a general business deduction for expenses occurred when they are moving online trade or business out of the united states. many congressmen i don't think know this that we actually give them a tax break. so they are taking those jobs. you can't have it both ways. you either want a fair trade
policy, fairness in terms of every country taxes differenwe into something that is faverable. so we push the manufacturing button. we can do it. we prove we can do it. our workers are the moels productive and given the opportunity they will produce. and now that we know the countries that we were trading with who are now finding and experiencing that their own groups are forming labor organizations, collective bargaining organizations, the transportation costs of many of these countries i think now is the time to strike and i ask everyone, this is not a democratic amendment and not a republican amendment. i ask for your support. thank you. >> the purpose of opposing i will recognize ms. black for ten minutes. >> i'm going to begin by holding
up this prop that mr. ribbal had here to begin with. holding it with one hand is difficult. we have a complicated code. we are about to complicate it more. we are about to in this amendment if it were to pass again choose winners and losers. weighs and means has been working very hard on simplifying the code and making it fair and making it flatter on the corporate, bringing that down to 25%. fundamental reform is really the answer to dealing with the issues of taxes in our industries. moving to a territorial tax system with a lower rate would actually create one million jobs. if we are talking about jobs and maintaining jobs here in our country this is a way to do that. it is fundamental reform with a territorial system and a lower rate. additionally, when we look at
u.s. head quarter multinationals invest and expand operations abroad it often leads to more economic growth here at home. so the idea that global expansion tends to hollow out our u.s. operations is really incorrect. a foreign affiliate tends to complicate and not substitute for key in the united states. i would like to call up on my colleague from oklahoma, mr. langford for some additional remarks. >> thank you. we do have the best workers in the world. let me tell you a quick story, as well. in oklahoma there is a plant there that makes the 2 k motors. they are shipped all over the world. they are trying to hire 20 additional people because business is booming. one major place they are shipping to is brazil.
they chose to land it in an area where you look at why they are doing it all over the world because they have great workers. that story is repeated all over our district. it has been successful in manufacturing and a lot of different areas. that's a big deal for us and engaging on that. we are in a global economy. this is an economy that we have to win on that. one way is by competing in the area of our corporate tax structure to make sure we get to a rate that matches the rest of the world and simplifies the system. i talked to a company that says they are taking a loan out in the united states because it is cheaper for them than it is to
repay overseas. they continue to accelerate. they buy products overseas and buy companies overseas. we are punishing companies for bringing their money home. we need to flatten that and make sure they can bring the money back and reinvest in capital. they said they would rather do it here than overseas. because our of tax law they are not going to do it. there are estimates of half a trillion dollars that could come home if we would do a territorial system. i would strongly encourage that we continue to press on with that bill. >> now, i'd like to yield three minutes to our colleague from indiana. >> thank you ms. black. i come from a district that is a long history of manufacturing. i tell you i couldn't be more proud of the workers that we have in northeast indiana.
i believe that manufacturing is what makes this country and has made this country to be the great country that we live in today. but, you know, in spite of the federal government's intrusion and the complicated tax code, manufacturing is still making a comeback under very difficult circumstances. in my district we build rvs, medical devices. we build trucks, steel, boats. we manufacture a lot of things in northeast indiana. what i hear from manufacturers back home is instead of worrying about what the rest of the world is doing we should be worrying about what we are doing here. we need an energy policy. we need to reform our tax code, simplify our tax code. those things right there would make a huge, huge difference in helping our manufacturers be successful and more productive right here at home rather than trying to get those companies
from other countries back into the united states let's encourage and stand besides those manufacturers that are here because they will grow and continue to produce. i am certain that what we need more now than anything else is simplify the tax code, go to a territorial tax structure rather than put our companies at a disadvantage. i went to as a small business owner i have done our taxes, filling out tax forms can be complicated and frustrating. i glanced at the irs home page to see how many forms there are that could potentially be filled out i found 1,171 forms that could be filled out by a potential business. obviously not every business is going to be filling out that many forms but talk about frightening. trying to start a small business would be very difficult to do
today because of the complicated tax code and the regulatory environment that we live in and also because of high energy prices. we need to focus on energy and simplifying our tax code. i applaud our manufacturers and believe we need to give them a break more than anything else. i yield back. >> i am going to yield two minutes to mr. ribable. >> i want to thank mr. paskarel as far as the general idea of what we can do to motivate and encourage businesses here in the united states. i think the way you are going about it probably isn't going to be as effective as you hope and maybe we ought to be looking at why businesses outsource. why do they take things offshore? rather than incentivising someone to return to u.s. maybe
we should craft policies that make them want to stay here. i think that would be far more effective. let's create policies that simplify and make easier our tax code. let's craft policies that don't penalizing them with tens and hundreds of thousands of pages of onus regulations. we need to understand why businesses leave the u.s. and go offshore. sometimes simply because they need to be there, the cost of shipping and competitive nature of what they do requires them to be overseas. sometimes they go because we have chased them away. i would encourage us to consider rather than using this methodology to get businesses to bring jobs back let's craft policy on the floor of the house and through our various committees that would solve the problem that companies stay here and grow here and build here in ways that would really expand
job growth. i think our budget is a good step in the right direction. i do thank the gentleman for offering the amendment and i yield back. >> thank you. and i think that obviously we are all wanting to make sure that we keep our workers here in the united states fully employed but i don't know that this is the answer. once again, looking at what the weighs and means committee has been working on for the last 15 or so months on the territorial tax with lowering the tax rate really is the answer rather than adding additional pieces to our code. with that i yield back my time, mr. chairman. >> the lady yields back her time. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i haven't heard one reason not to vote for this amendment. i have heard other ways we might want to do the same thing.
i respect them and respect those who have spoken against the amendment. would you please hold that code up one more time? or help her. thank you. that code that you're holding up, ma'am, what percentage of that code has been written by corporations in this country? we always refer to this code. most of the code does not deal with the people, most of the people who live in my district or probably your district. they don't have the shelters and the means and the attorneys to figure out what is going to cover their fannies. they don't. when you hold up that code you make all of us suspect in that each of us are trying to write pages into that code. that's not the case at all. in fact, let's go to the 25% rate which is a nice number -- >> we are not going to go to the 25% rate because we are out of
time. we know where you are going. we get the picture. questions on the amendment off all those in favor say aye. those opposed say no. opinion of the chair the noes have it. the clerk will call the role. >> mr. simpson, no. mr. campbell, no. mr. calvert, no. mr. aiken. mr. cole. mr. cole, no. mr. price. mr. price, no. mr. mcclintock, no. mr. stetsman. mr. stetsman, no. mr. langford. mr. langford, no. ms. black. ms. black, no. mr. ripple. mr. ripple, no.
mr. flor ez, no. mr. mull veiny, no. mr. young. mr. young, no. mr. amish, no. mr. ghenta, no. mr. woodal, no. mr. van holen. mr. van holen, aye. ms. kaptur, aye. mr. dogt, aye. m mr. yarmouth, aye. mr. paskarel, aye.
mr. ryan of ohio, aye. ms. moor, aye. ms. caster, aye. mr. shuller, aye. ms. bass, aye. mr. aiken, no. mr. chairman. mr. chairman, no. >> any other members looking to vote or to change their vote. if not the clerk shall report. >> mr. chairman on that vote the ayes are 15 and the noes are 21. >> the amendment is not agreed to. next we ms. schultz will be recognized for an amendment. >> the clerk will designate.
>> an amendment offered by ms. schultz relating to medicaid. >> thank you mr. chairman. i offer amendment nine which stops reckless and shameful cuts to seniors. this will ensure that senior citizens will not lose vital medicaid assistance to cover the cost of their nursing home care. this amendment also ensures that low income beneficiaries eligible for medicare receive help paying premiums. in gutting medicaid the republican budget jeopardizes security for 5 million seniors, 10 million individuals with disabilities. these millions at risk represent our conconstituents who are counting on us. unless we adopt this amendment
the republican budget sends the message that it is acceptable to lead seniors and disabled down the palth of poverty. as a member of congress who represents a large number of seniors in south florida i can tell you that this budget would be absolutely devastating for seniors and older americans. by cutting $810 billion from medicaid funding and converting the program into block grants this rations by straining state budgets and leading many states to end the care that they provide. this impact will fall disproportionately on the backs of vulnerable seniors. though they only count for a quarter, seniors and people with disabilities account for 2 #/3 of all spending. since that is where the bulk of spending occurs we know it would be this population that would suffer the most we know it would be these cuts. we must stop the cuts and the
gop budget that chooses tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires over health care for seniors and children. that is why so many have spoken out against the completely backward approach. this is a budget that doubles down on a quest to turn medicare into a privatized voucher program stacking the deck against health care. the american federation of teachers said it is morally unacceptable and economically to put down a budget that doubles on a cuts only approach to our economy at a time when our children and families continue to struggle. the medicare rights center said the budget introduced today is still a vouch r plan. it is a clear statement of our nation's values.
our republican colleagues have chosen to prioritize tax breaks for oil companies and loopholes that reward outsourcing. let us reject these backward priorities and work towards a future where we prevent our families from falling into poverty. now i would like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from maryland, our ranking member. >> thank you very much for offering this amendment. in a budget that has lots of harmful things in it the medicaid provisions are among the worst and the most harmful. as she has said projects by the tenth year you cut medicaid by over $800 billion. that's a third of the program, a program i have heard people in this committee say is already
very close to the edge and under funded. when it is fully phased in you would cut the medicaid program by 75%. these are seniors in nursing homes. that's where the bulk of the money is spent. these are people with disabilities. these are kids. and to take that cut and put it in a document under a heading "repairing the social safety net" is orwell yn to call it that. i hope people are really paying attention. do we have a slide here? because budgets are about choices. and the choice that you make, again, by refusing to ask folks at the very top to share in the responsibility for the budget is
to make the choice that you are going to protect all of those tax breaks at the expense of these seniors and kids. i don't think that is a choice the american people want to make. that is what this debate is all about. there is the slide that shows in very graphic terms the choice that republicans are making in their budget. that doesn't even include the new wind fall tax break to millionaires. >> now i would like to yield two minutes to ms. bass. >> i want to associate myself with the remarks with the sponsor of this amendment and further emphasize deep cuts to medicare proposed put our seniors at risk of losing care that they depend on today. while the largest month are low income children and adults the majority of medicaid spending around 65% goes to the elderly. medicaid is also the primary payer for an estimated 63.6% of
all nursing home residents, medicaid services help seniors and people with disabilities remain living in their homes and communities. the republican plan would slash federal medicaid funding by about 1/3 in 2022 and threaten the health of our seniors. the amendment would ensure that seniors would not lose assistance to cover the cost of their nursing home care and home care services. i urge colleagues to support this amendment. i yield back my time. >> thank you. i would like to yield one noont my colleague, the gentle lady from pennsylvania, ms. schwartz. >> i share with my colleagues. i appreciate this amendment the sense of concern about this amendment. for those of us with high senior
populations and also with governors who are really willing to make pretty drastic cuts already to then say to them we are going to cut even more is quite concerning. any of us who have had a loved one in a nursing home or needing home care i offered this amendment last year when my father was in and out of rehab, it was pretty tough to imagine as i walked by in those facilities and watch some of the other residents there who had spent everything that they had that actually we are not there through elective decision making. this was a choice they had to be there. they want to be treated with respect. we all are deeply concerned about the quality of our nursing homes and appreciate the ones that are really fine. the fact of cutting $800 billion, almost a third of our spending on medicaid and to
think it will make no difference particularly as it goes up from there to the numbers we have heard 50% by 2023. this is a very, very difficult place to imagine being able to say to the seniors in our community, the frailest most vulnerable who rely on this care that this simply won't matter. it is hard to believe. so i support this amendment. this is about standing with our seniors but our most frail seniors and the people who take care of them. this is not an easy job. i yield back and say i appreciate this amendment and hope this is one that our colleagues can stand with us on. >> just hold it down for a few seconds. >> now it's on. thank you so much to my colleagues who spoken in support of this amendment. as someone who represents thousands and thousands of senior citizens, one of the
largest senior citizen populations in the country i see first-hand every day the impact of choosing tax breaks over making sure that 60% of our seniors in nursing homes -- >> you'll have a minute to close. >> i assumed that was minute to clo close. i'll save it. >> i do appreciate this amendment fully expected it. apparently there is some confusion with the numbers. i guess the base frs the amendment. as i understand our budget we do increase spending throughout this decade to come. it will continue to increase as it has in the last decade. the real question, though, in my opinion in addition to spending more money i think we can all
agree that throwing more money at a problem in the same system is not the answer. my governor and governors from other states who are responsible for the implementation of this program actually have requests, let us be responsible and accountable. what this budget will do will put the responsibility with the politicians and bureaucrats that are closest to the people, the folks that actually know what is happening in my state and numerous other states rather than relying to someone in baltimore and maryland at the centers, cms, to make those particular decisions. this places that responsibility with our local and state folks and does it with more money. and with that i'm going to yield to my colleague from the state of indiana who has authored a bill that does just this.
>> i thank the gentleman. i want to first address the false premise that medicaid is a fully functioning program that provides people with access to health care because it doesn't. nothing could be further from the truth. let's talk about the waste in the program right now. the ge.o. continues to list the program as high risk for waste, fraud and abuse. found in 2011 almost 10% of the total federal medicaid spending was wasted because of complicated and bureaucratic laden payment regimes. and then there is the fraud. 11 texas cities found in august, 2011, 1.6 million was recovered from 11 texas cities to resolve the allegations. that same month in florida a
president of a durable medical equipment company was imperezened for fraud. block granting medicaid funding to states is the right thing to do. i speak as a former statewide elected official. the states know their population best. who is going to hold the governors and the states accountable? guess what. the people will hold the governors and the states accountable. what makes us sitting here that we know better than the elected officials of our states and of our localities? why can't we trust the people again? why are we trusting some unelected unaccountable bureaucrats with billions and billions of dollars instead of trusting the people that we are supposed to be serving? when you block grant medicaid you let the states decide who is
poor and what kind of services that they need. yes, the states. the people. not a federal unelected unaccountable bureaucrat. that works best. i'm not yielding. i'm not yielding. i'm looking. the one-size-fits-all washington mandated strategy that wastes millions of dollars creates fraud does not work. i'll yield back to the gentleman. >> thank you. i next yield two minutes to my colleague from indiana, as well. >> i think my colleague from kansas. functioning as effectively as it look, medicaid is not could if we were to give states flexibility to tailor the current one-size-fits-all
program to each of the populations and individual needs listening to their individual populations. i agree with the sentiments of my colleague from indiana. let's not assume that all wisdom resides here in washington. let's not assume that all administrative creativity resides here in washington dc. let's allow our 50 states to figure practices to their populations. one thing i know the states would welcome is the opportunity to tackle not just the waste but the fraud. the problem with fraud is so bad the department of justice has devoted an entire unit to rooting out this problem in medicaid. in august of 2011, $1.6 million was recovered from 11 texas cities to resolvell